If you could get away with other penalties like you can diving would you encourage doing that too? Would you be ok winning a Championship just because you constantly tripped the opposing defenseman and gave yourself a few breakaways each game?

When you play in the NHL you agree to follow the rules. That is how any system of rules works. The same goes for laws in a society. Sure they are policed in some way and there are consequences to breaking them, but it really comes down to the people under those rules agreeing to follow them. If everyone just started stealing from each other there would be nothing the police or government could do to stop it. The only reason the rule of "no stealing" works is because (almost) everyone agrees that it is wrong and does not do it. The rules of the NHL should be no different. The players have agreed to play the game in a certain way, and should stick to it.

You agree to follow the rules, sure.. but if those rules aren't enforced, what incentive is there to actually follow them? You are right, that society would basically implode if everyone suddenly decided to break the law, because there aren't enough people to enforce those rules to stop the overwhelming amount of people that would try to break them. You are right that the laws work because the majority of people agree to follow them. The truth is, though, that many of the people who got big, either got lucky or got there by cheating in one way or another. Bill Gates stole Steve Jobs' work, for example.

The reason I don't mind diving is because the majority of the time, people are diving because the other team's player did something to break the rules against you that wasn't called. The diving is done to draw attention to the other player's infraction. I absolutely do not endorse diving for the sake of diving.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dreakmur

My teams win a lot. I started coaching in the 1998/99 season. My teams have won their league 8 times, and have been the finalists 3 other times.

As I've said numerous times before, my teams win because I am lucky to coach great teams, but the fact that I don't let them cheat doesn't seem to stop them from winning.

That's a pretty solid record. Why don't you coach NHL teams?

Quote:

It's not giving them a competitive advantage. You're actually taking away from that advangate.

How is drawing a penalty that otherwise would not have been called not giving you a competitive advantage?

Quote:

A lot of people just give up when they get hooked. That makes it very easy on the hooker. By fighting through it, they have two options. They can really lay into you, which almost always leads to a penalty, ot they can let you go, which leads to you breaking into open ice.

These players wouldn't give up if everything was being called properly. That's the whole point. And as I've stated numerous times, by fighting through it, you're expending far more energy than the player hooking you, and thus putting yourself at a disadvantage.

Quote:

Drew Doughty, Logan Couture, and Nazem Kadri.

Liar.

Quote:

The refs should call it. Just because you can get away with something doesn't mean it's honorable to do so.

Honor in the NHL died a long time ago.

Quote:

Absolutely disagree.

Most of the kids I coach will end up playing beer league with me. If I can teach them that working hard and being honest in your efforts is a good thing, then they'll be better off in life.

You may be right with respect to the "better off in life".. but I'm not convinced. I'm not convinced that advocating against cheating in a competitive game has any effect on how a person acts in real life.

If you are not taking steroids, you are cheating your team! Bunch of selfish non-cheaters!

As I've stated in the past, I don't endorse cheating for the sake of cheating.. what I meant by diving has always been "diving to draw attention to an infraction against you". If you're diving for the sake of it, you should be called. I don't have any problems with embellishment, if it's not being called.

I agree with BraveCanadian. It's not about the consequences. It's about holding yourself to a standard of integrity.

I coach kids, and I make it clear to them that diving and playing to the refs is not something we do. Sometimes they do it anyway, and it doesn't mean they are bad kids, they just get frustrated and they want to win. But that's why you have coaches - to teach the kids how to conduct themselves, not just to run drills and set the lineup.

I'm glad that you and Dreakmur both teach the kids to be better people - not just hockey players - instead of stooping down for the sake of "winning" a game. My hat is off to you both.

As I said up thread, I would rather lose with my head held high and my integrity intact than "win" through cheating. To me it makes the win hollow.

As I've stated in the past, I don't endorse cheating for the sake of cheating.. what I meant by diving has always been "diving to draw attention to an infraction against you". If you're diving for the sake of it, you should be called. I don't have any problems with embellishment, if it's not being called.

I have learned over the years that arguments rarely result in an agreement, since both sides just entrench themselves with the beleif they held in the first place. I'm hoping for the rare instance where you see that you're wrong

Quote:

I previously stated that I'm only in support of embellishment of infractions.. NOT just for the sake of doing it. Stop going completely off track.

I'm just trying to figure out where you draw your arbitrary line.... so I can show you that it is hypocritical.

The biggest issue here is your statement below:

Quote:

Coaches that don't encourage diving are doing their players and team that hires them a disservice - they are not using a means of getting ahead to try to win games, and they have a professional obligation to use anything they can to win the games.

I won't budge from my belief. I'm trying to to withdraw from this debate, because there will be no end to it.

You haven't even made your beliefs clear, asside from you are pro-diving.

Quote:

As far as my statement, how is that wrong? They ARE obligated to win in any way they can. They are being paid to win. Anything less than a win is a failure.

I didn't say it was wrong. I said it was inconsistent with your other statements.

That statement means that you support any and all attempts to win, regardless of morality. That statement means that you support diving in all forms, the use of performance enhancing drugs in all forms, the use of tampering, bribing, and blackmaiing of all forms, etc.

If assassinating the other team's star player gives you a better chance to win, you are obligated to do that, right?

Of course, when VI was exposed as having multiple accounts, it was you who led the charge, claiming that the ATD's integrity has been forever destroyed. Even if you thought he used his mutliple accounts to circumvent the voting process, that's right down your "do whatever it takes to win" alley, isn't it?

I have learned over the years that arguments rarely result in an agreement, since both sides just entrench themselves with the beleif they held in the first place. I'm hoping for the rare instance where you see that you're wrong

I'm just trying to figure out where you draw your arbitrary line.... so I can show you that it is hypocritical.

You haven't even made your beliefs clear, asside from you are pro-diving.

Again.. I am pro-embellishment, and the reason that I am pro-embellishment is because the refs don't call it, and the other team is getting away with it, that NOT doing it yourself puts your team at a competitive disadvantage and, as far as I'm concerned, is in breach of your obligation to do everything within reason to try to win the game.

I'm glad that you and Dreakmur both teach the kids to be better people - not just hockey players - instead of stooping down for the sake of "winning" a game. My hat is off to you both.

As I said up thread, I would rather lose with my head held high and my integrity intact than "win" through cheating. To me it makes the win hollow.

Let's not strawman jarek here, either, fellas. He started this discussion speaking in terms of professional hockey players, for whom money is often the #1 motivation for what they do, and who do much worse things on occasion to win the Stanley Cup than just embellish. This is in no way a reflection of how he might coach kids if he was a coach.

Let's not strawman jarek here, either, fellas. He started this discussion speaking in terms of professional hockey players, for whom money is often the #1 motivation for what they do, and who do much worse things on occasion to win the Stanley Cup than just embellish. This is in no way a reflection of how he might coach kids if he was a coach.

Huh?

First of all they don't get paid except a relative pittance for the playoffs.

Second, I was commending two guys for doing things the way they should be done and that has nothing to do with how jarek would or would not coach.

Again.. I am pro-embellishment, and the reason that I am pro-embellishment is because the refs don't call it, and the other team is getting away with it, that NOT doing it yourself puts your team at a competitive disadvantage and, as far as I'm concerned, is in breach of your obligation to do everything within reason to try to win the game.

By that logic, you should also be pro-drugs, pro-bribing, and pro-cheating in all it's forms.

Drug testing in the NHL is extremely relaxed. There are cheaters getting away with it right now. Do you think players should be using performance enhancers to get a competitive advantage?

By that logic, you should also be pro-drugs, pro-bribing, and pro-cheating in all it's forms.

Drug testing in the NHL is extremely relaxed. There are cheaters getting away with it right now. Do you think players should be using performance enhancers to get a competitive advantage?

What logic? Within reason is a very ambiguous statement. If you can't even understand that much, that there are indeed perhaps some things that I do not approve of, then you're not even worth the time anymore.

What logic? Within reason is a very ambiguous statement. If you can't even understand that much, that there are indeed perhaps some things that I do not approve of, then you're not even worth the time anymore.

You keep saying that players and coaches have an obligation to do whatever it takes to win. That does include diving, but it also includes more severe forms of cheating, like performance enancing drugs, or worse.

You keep saying that players and coaches have an obligation to do whatever it takes to win. That does include diving, but it also includes more severe forms of cheating, like performance enancing drugs, or worse.

Holy crap, man.. what do you not understand about "WITHIN REASON"? I went and edited my post and then did that whole thing about you misquoting me to try to hammer across the point that I DO NOT approve every form of cheating imaginable. I figured that was obvious right from the start. Just.. stop posting, you're making my head explode.

Holy crap, man.. what do you not understand about "WITHIN REASON"? I went and edited my post and then did that whole thing about you misquoting me to try to hammer across the point that I DO NOT approve every form of cheating imaginable. I figured that was obvious right from the start. Just.. stop posting, you're making my head explode.

I don't understand how you can just draw an arbitrary line. Cheating is cheating. How is some cheating acceptable, but other cheating not?

I don't understand how you can just draw an arbitrary line. Cheating is cheating. How is some cheating acceptable, but other cheating not?

So you think cheating is just black and white, and that people are not capable of accepting one form of cheating but not another?

To continue with your ridiculous examples, should I not be allowed to kill someone who pulls a knife out on me in the name of self defense? I mean, what I'm doing is still murder, I'm still killing someone willfully, regardless of the circumstances.

You don't have to understand. I draw that line, and that's the way it is. If you can't understand why, well, I don't care anymore.

So you think cheating is just black and white, and that people are not capable of accepting one form of cheating but not another?

Cheating is black and white. It is a moral choice.

Quote:

To continue with your ridiculous examples, should I not be allowed to kill someone who pulls a knife out on me in the name of self defense? I mean, what I'm doing is still murder, I'm still killing someone willfully, regardless of the circumstances.

I should be able to defend yourself, but not deliberately kill. Once the attacker is no longer a threat, you have no more need to defend yourself.